←back to thread

724 points simonw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
marcusb ◴[] No.44527530[source]
This reminds me in a way of the old Noam Chomsky/Tucker Carlson exchange where Chomsky says to Carlson:

  "I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting."
Simon may well be right - xAI might not have directly instructed Grok to check what the boss thinks before responding - but that's not to say xAI wouldn't be more likely to release a model that does agree with the boss a lot and privileges what he has said when reasoning.
replies(5): >>44528694 #>>44528695 #>>44528706 #>>44528766 #>>44529331 #
breppp ◴[] No.44528766[source]
and neither would Chomsky be interviewed by the BBC for his linguistic theory, if he hadn't held these edgy opinions
replies(2): >>44528838 #>>44529261 #
mattmanser ◴[] No.44528838[source]
The BBC will have multiple people with differing view points on however.

So while you're factually correct, you lie by omission.

Their attempts at presently a balanced view is almost to the point of absurdity these days as they were accused so often, and usually quite falsely, of bias.

replies(3): >>44528873 #>>44528897 #>>44532360 #
breppp ◴[] No.44528873[source]
I said BBC because as the other poster added, this was a BBC reporter rather than Carlson

Chomsky's entire argument is, that the reporter opinions are meaningless as he is part of some imaginary establishment and therefore he had to think that way.

That game goes both ways, Chomsky's opinions are only being given TV time as they are unusual.

I would venture more and say the only reason Chomsky holds these opinions is because of the academics preference for original thought rather than mainstream thought. As any repeat of an existing theory is worthless.

The problem is that in the social sciences that are not grounded in experiments, too much ungrounded original thought leads to academic conspiracy theories

replies(1): >>44529283 #
suddenlybananas ◴[] No.44529283[source]
Imaginary establishment? Do you think power doesn't exist?
replies(1): >>44530070 #
breppp ◴[] No.44530070[source]
power does exist, however foucault's theory of power as a metaphysical force pervading everyone's actions and thought is a conspiracy theory
replies(2): >>44531249 #>>44531648 #
mejutoco ◴[] No.44531648{3}[source]
And yet even in this old forum, depending on what I write in the comment, I can be praised, shadowbanned or downvoted.
replies(1): >>44533155 #
1. Der_Einzige ◴[] No.44533155{4}[source]
Dang being an ass and the moderation on HN being bad doesn't mean that suddenly the disappearance of leprosy from europe was a socially constructed thing. Foucault is so full of shit that I think calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is charitable. He's a full on anti-scientific charlatan.

Biopolitics/biopower is a conspiracy theory. Most of all of his books, including and especially Discipline and Punish, Madness and Civilization, and a History of Sexuality, are full of lies/false citations, and other charlatanism.

A whole lot of others are also full of Shit. Lacan is the most full of shit of all, but even the likes of Marshal Mcluhan are full of shit. Entire fields like "Semiotics" are also full of shit.